GITA MITTAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS suit for recovery of Rs. 21,52,618/- has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants on grounds of non-payment of the amounts towards goods which were supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff, a registered partnership firm with its principal place of business at a-54, Nizamuddin (East), New Delhi-110013, is engaged inter alia in the business of manufacture and export of Persian-Kashmir carpets, chainstitched rugs and pashmina shawls. The plaintiff has also claimed registration under the export-import policy for registered export with the Directorate of Handicrafts of the government of Jammu and Kashmir. The plaintiff also holds a certificate of registration in its favour from the Directorate of Handicrafts of the Government of India under the import/export plicy. ( 2 ) THE defendant no. 1, a company incorporated under the laws of Canada, is carrying on business of imports and distribution in Canada. Mr. Jim oberoi/gorlal Oberoi is a director in the defendant no. 1 company,. The defendant no. 1 was conducting its affairs in India through Mr. Shrikant Saxena, the defendant no. 2, as its buying agent. Amongst the responsibilities of the defendant no. 2, he was required to place orders upon suppliers of the defendant no. 1, provide them with designs and colour combinations, follow up with the production activity and finally inspect each and every carpet, put seals of approval on every rug and thereafter issue inspection certificates to the suppliers. The defendant no. 2 has so conducted itself in the execution of the orders which were placed by the defendant no. 1 on the plaintiff which are the subject matter of the present case. The defendant no. 3, the Toronto Dominian Bank is a foreign bank who has been sued in its capacity as a collecting agent for the plaintiff's principal bankers i. e. The Punjab National Bank, Srinagar. The plaintiff has attributed non-collection of the amount of invoices from the defendant no. 1 upon the defendant no. 3 and consequently arrayed it as a party before this court. ( 3 ) SO far as the record of this court is concerned, the defendant no. 1 was served by publication of a citation in the overseas addition of 'the statesman' pursuant to orders dated 30. 5. 2002. Despite service, the defendant no. 1 upon the defendant no. 3 and consequently arrayed it as a party before this court. ( 3 ) SO far as the record of this court is concerned, the defendant no. 1 was served by publication of a citation in the overseas addition of 'the statesman' pursuant to orders dated 30. 5. 2002. Despite service, the defendant no. 1 did not put in appearance and also chose not to file the written statement. In these circumstances, the defendant no. 1 was directed to be proceeded ex-parte by an order passed on 27th July, 2006. ( 4 ) THE defendant no. 3 in its written statement took the stand that there was no privity of contract between it and the plaintiff; that goods were consigned to the defendant no. 3 by the plaintiff for the purposes of being delivered to defendant no. 1 upon the acceptance of the bills raised by the plaintiff in respect of the consigned goods by the defendant no. 1, without any prior agreement on the part of the defendant no. 3 bank. It is further submitted that there was no instruction to the defendant no. 3 that it was to effect delivery of documents only against payment by the defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 3 consequently complied with the instructions received by it and delivered the documents to the defendant no. 1 upon acceptance of the bills in respect of the goods in question. The defendant no. 3 contended that it was merely a collecting agent for the plaintiff's principal bank and has acted in accordance with the instructions given to it by the Punjab National Bank and consequently no liability for dues of the defendant no. 1 can be fastened on it. In the proceedings on 27. 7. 2006 it was pointed out on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant no. 3 had caused the bills to be protested and notarised, the certificate of which has been placed before this court. In the light of these submissions the defendant no. 3 had sought deletion of its name from the array of parties. Upon consideration of these aspects of the matter, a statement was made on behalf of the plaintiff and consequently the defendant no. 3 was directed to be deleted from the array of parties. Only the defendant no. 2 has filed a written statement to the plaint in the matter. Upon consideration of these aspects of the matter, a statement was made on behalf of the plaintiff and consequently the defendant no. 3 was directed to be deleted from the array of parties. Only the defendant no. 2 has filed a written statement to the plaint in the matter. ( 5 ) IN this background, the uncontested facts established on record are that the defendant no. 1 through Mr. Jim Oberoi approached the plaintiff in May, 1997 for the purchase of artistic Indian hand made/knotted staple/synthetic rayon kashmir carpets and selected goods for purchase on the spot. The defendant no. 1 thereafter placed an order upon the plaintiff for supply of such goods vide a purchase order dated 26th May, 1997 (Exhibit PW1/3 ). The defendant no. 3 was nominated as a negotiating bank of the defendant no. 1. As per the instructions of the defendant no. 1, the consignment was to be shipped by sea and the documents were to be sent through the defendant no. 3 being the consignee. The goods to be shipped were required to be inspected by the defendant no. 2 as an agent of the defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 2 was required to issue a certificate confirming that the merchandise being shipped was in accordance with the contract terms. ( 6 ) THE plaintiff has stated that upon execution of the order, the defendant no. 2 duly inspected the goods and issued an inspection certificate upon satisfaction that they were the ordered goods. The inspection certificate issued by the defendant no. 2 was dated 27th May, 1997 and has been proved on record as exhibit PW 1/6. The plaintiff shipped the merchandise to the defendant no. 1 in terms of the purchase order dated 26th May, 1997 vide invoice no. MR/788/97, 98 dated 27th May, 1997 (Exhibit PW 1/4) for a total value of US $ 22,102. 38. These goods were sent against a packing list which indicated bale numbers 1-14 dated 27th May, 1997 (Exhibit PW 1/5 ). The goods were shipped against the bill of lading bearing no. DLI/tor/0022 dated 4. 6. 97 (Exhibit PW 1/7 ). The plaintiff confirmed dispatch of the goods by sea to the defendant no. 1 by a letter dated 5. 6. 97. A bill of exchange dated 9. 6. 97 for the amount of US $ 22,102. 35 has been marked exhibit PW 1/9. DLI/tor/0022 dated 4. 6. 97 (Exhibit PW 1/7 ). The plaintiff confirmed dispatch of the goods by sea to the defendant no. 1 by a letter dated 5. 6. 97. A bill of exchange dated 9. 6. 97 for the amount of US $ 22,102. 35 has been marked exhibit PW 1/9. Documents confirming incoming messages of the goods having been shipped to defendant no. 1 through defendant no. 3 from the Punjab National Bank, international banking branch, New Delhi has been marked exhibit PW 1/10, 1/11 and 1/12. ( 7 ) THE plaintiff has stated that against the invoice number MR/788/97,98 dated 27. 5. 97, the defendant no. 1 has effected part payment of US $ 13,000/-and failed to make balance payment thereof. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, as the defendant no. 1 was satisfied with the quality of the goods shipped by the Plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 after receipt of goods pursuant to the earlier purchase order, placed a further order upon the plaintiff dated 15. 8. 97. This time again the goods were inspected by the defendant no. 2 after they were ready, the defendant no. 2 again issued an inspection certificate dated 15. 9. 97 (Exhibit PW 1/13) confirming that the merchandise was in accordance with the contract terms. ( 9 ) AS in the past and as contracted the plaintiff thereupon shipped the contracted goods to the defendant no. 1 in terms of the purchase order. Invoice no. MR 791/97,98 dated 18. 9. 97 in the sum of US $ 22,591. 06 was raised upon the defendant no. 1. Once again the goods were consigned to the defendant no. 3 with documents relating to the shipment. A bill was raised upon the defendant no. 1 in terms of the invoice which was payable after 75 days of acceptance i. e. by 18. 9. 97. ( 10 ) IT is an undisputed fact that the bill was accepted by the defendant no. 1 from the defendant no. 3 and delivery of the goods were taken by the defendant no. 1 after taking the documents of shipment from the defendant no. 3. The plaintiff has established its invoice no. MR 791/97,98 dated 18. 9. 97 for US $ 22,591. /06 as exhibit PW 1/14; the packing list dated 18. 9. 1 from the defendant no. 3 and delivery of the goods were taken by the defendant no. 1 after taking the documents of shipment from the defendant no. 3. The plaintiff has established its invoice no. MR 791/97,98 dated 18. 9. 97 for US $ 22,591. /06 as exhibit PW 1/14; the packing list dated 18. 9. 97 indicating the bale numbers as 1-14 as exhibit PW 1`/15; the inspection certificate dated 15. 9. 97 issued by the defendant no. 2 as exhibit PW 1/16, the bill of lading no. DLI/tor/0161 dated 27. 9. 97 as exhibit PW /17. As in the past consignment, the plaintiff confirmed dispatch of goods to the defendant no. 1 by a letter dated 4. 10. 97 which has been marked exhibit PW 1/18, while the bill of exchange dated 7. 10. 97 for the sum of US $ 22591. 06 is exhibit PW 1/19. ( 11 ) AS per the term of agreement between the parties the amount of the bill raised on defendant no. 1 was payable after 75 days of acceptance by the defendant no. 1 to the defendant no. 3. Thus, the defendant no. 1 was liable to pay the bill amounts in respect of the two consignments to the plaintiff within 75 days from 4. 6. 97 and 27. 9. 97 respectively. ( 12 ) THE bills were for the amount of US $ 22102. 38 and US $ 22591. 06. Out of these amounts, the defendant has effected part payment of US $ 13000/- which was towards the invoice dated 27. 9. 97. No amount was been paid towards the second invoice and consignment leaving a total US $ 31693. 44 as outstanding from the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff. ( 13 ) I find that there is no dispute by the defendant no. 1 so far as the goods were concerned. The goods were shipped on time and received without any objection by the defendant no. 1. The satisfaction of the defendant no. 1 in respect of the goods which were supplied is also evidenced from the fact that it placed a second order upon the plaintiff after receipt of the goods which was a subject matter of the first order. ( 14 ) I find that the defendant no. 1. The satisfaction of the defendant no. 1 in respect of the goods which were supplied is also evidenced from the fact that it placed a second order upon the plaintiff after receipt of the goods which was a subject matter of the first order. ( 14 ) I find that the defendant no. 2 in its written statement has stated that it issued the inspection certificate after recording its full satisfaction that the goods which were being supplied by the plaintiff were as per the work order placed by the defendant no. 1 on the plaintiff. Defendant no. 2 has submitted that he thoroughly inspected the goods in respect of quality, size, colour design etc before issuance of the inspection certificate. There is no complaint received from the defendant no. 1with regard to the goods. The fact that the goods have also been retained by it shows that there was no reason for non-payment of the bills to the plaintiff. ( 15 ) BEFORE this court, the plaintiff has placed reliance on a fax dated 21. 10. 97 (Exhibit PW 1/20) addressed by the defendant no. 1 to the defendant no. 2 confirming that the defendant no. 1 would make all payments against the goods shipped through the defendant no. 2 and that the non-payment was because of slow business resulting in inability of the dealer to fulfil the commitment. The plaintiff has also placed before this court a fax dated 5. 11. 97 (Exhibit PW 1/22); 11. 12. 97 (Exhibit PW 1/23); 29. 12. 97 (Exhibit PW 1/24); 6. 1. 98 (Exhibit pw 1/25); 15. 1. 98 (Exhibit PW 1/26) and 14. 5. 98 (Exhibit PW 1/27 ). In each of these documents, the defendant no. 1 regretted the delay in making payment of the amount due to the plaintiff and stated that the same was neither intentional nor intended. The defendant no. 1 repeatedly confirmed that the delay in the payment would be addressed and the difficulties shortly resolved. All these communications have been addressed by Mr. Jim Oberoi on behalf of the defendant no. 1 to the addressee. ( 16 ) THE plaintiff has submitted that after much persuasion, the defendant no. 1 sent a communication dated 24. 7. 98 (Exhibit PW 1/28) enclosing a payment advise for US $ 5000 and stated that it would sent more as much as possible. Jim Oberoi on behalf of the defendant no. 1 to the addressee. ( 16 ) THE plaintiff has submitted that after much persuasion, the defendant no. 1 sent a communication dated 24. 7. 98 (Exhibit PW 1/28) enclosing a payment advise for US $ 5000 and stated that it would sent more as much as possible. The payment advise is dated 16. 6. 98 for the sum of US $ 5000 (Exhibit PW 1/30)was drawn on the defendant no. 3. The defendant no. 1 sent a cheque dated 18. 6. 98 (Exhibit PW 1/31`) for the sum of US $ 5000 towards part payment tot he plaintiff. ( 17 ) THE defendant no. 1 additionally gave a cheque of US $ 5000 to the plaintiff which was dated 10. 9. 98 and has been marked exhibit PW 1/36. However mr. Jim Oberoi appears to have given instructions to the plaintiff not to encash the cheque without further instructions. Despite faxes dated 12. 8. 98 (Exhibit pw 1/32); 1. 9. 98 (exhibit PW 1/33) and 17. 9. 98 (Exhibit PW 1/34) seeking a firm date when the cheque could be deposited, the plaintiff received no instructions from the defendant no. 1. Consequently in its communication of 17. 9. 98 the plaintiff informed the defendant no. 1 that it was facing objections from the reserve Bank of India to whom it was accountable in respect of the payment towards the export and consequently, in case no instructions were received, it would deposit this cheque on 18. 9. 98. The plaintiff has also placed a fax dated 10. 9. 98 sent by Mr. Jim Oberoi on behalf of the defendant no. 1 which has been marked exhibit PW 1/29 wherein it was stated that by tuesday the 15th September, 1998 the plaintiff would be given a definite answer as to when the cheque could be deposited as well as post dated cheque. ( 18 ) ON failure of the defendant no. 1 to respond, the plaintiff deposited the cheque as intimated. It is only thereafter that the defendant no. 1 sent a communication dated 27. 9. 98 to which the plaintiff responded by the fax dated 23. 9. 98 which is exhibit PW 1/35 on record. ( 19 ) INSTEAD of the cheque dated 10. 9. 1 to respond, the plaintiff deposited the cheque as intimated. It is only thereafter that the defendant no. 1 sent a communication dated 27. 9. 98 to which the plaintiff responded by the fax dated 23. 9. 98 which is exhibit PW 1/35 on record. ( 19 ) INSTEAD of the cheque dated 10. 9. 98 (Exhibit PW 1/36) being processed for payment, the same was returned without collection to the plaintiff's bankers with the intimation that the same was not honoured on presentation for the reason that the drawer had stopped payment of the cheque. The plaintiff has placed the intimation from Citi Bank dated 23. 11. 98 in his behalf on record as exhibit PW 1/37. ( 20 ) IT has been submitted that the plaintiff's bankers, the Punjab national Bank was also pressing the defendant no. 3 as to the non-realisation of the foreign bill which was payable by the defendant no. 1. According to the plaintiff, despite repeated reminders to the defendant no. 1 to make payment of the amount due and payable, the defendant no. 1 has failed to make payment of the amounts due to it. ( 21 ) I find that there is no dispute of the receipt of goods from the plaintiff which were in terms of the orders placed by it on the plaintiff. The quality of the goods stands confirmed by the defendant no. 2 from the documents on record as well as from the admissions made in its written statement. The extensive correspondence from the side of the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff noticed hereinabove also confirms that the amounts of the invoices dated 27. 5. 97 and 18. 9. 97 were due and payable by the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 repeatedly confirmed that the amount was due and payable by it and sought time for making payment of the amount yet failed to do so. A cheque towards part payment of the amounts due and payable was tendered by the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff. Yet the defendant no. 1 stopped payment of the amount of the cheque to the plaintiff. ( 22 ) FROM the aforenoticed facts, it is evident that the defendant no. 1 has failed to make payment of its contractual dues and admitted liability to the plaintiff. Out of the amount of US $ 22102. 1 to the plaintiff. Yet the defendant no. 1 stopped payment of the amount of the cheque to the plaintiff. ( 22 ) FROM the aforenoticed facts, it is evident that the defendant no. 1 has failed to make payment of its contractual dues and admitted liability to the plaintiff. Out of the amount of US $ 22102. 35 being the amount payable as per first invoice no. MR788/97,98 dated 27. 5. 97, the defendant no. 1 paid only an amount of US $ 13000. So far as invoice no. MR 791/97,98 dated 18. 9. 97 for US $ 22591. 06, the defendant no. 1 has failed to make any payment. In these circumstances the plaintiff has stated that an amount of US $ 31693,. 44 is due and payable by the defendant no. 1 to it. According to the defendant no. 2, the defendant no. 1 repeatedly assured him also that he would make the payments to the plaintiff but has failed to do so. ( 23 ) THE plaintiff has stated that the purchase orders were received by it at Delhi. The goods were consigned at Delhi. The defendant no. 2 is the agent of the defendant no. 1 is stated to be residing and working for gain at Delhi and had carried out the inspection of the goods at Delhi. The plaintiff has submitted that part payment was received by it at Delhi. From these facts it is evident that part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this court. Thus this court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the subject matter of the present case. ( 24 ) FROM a perusal of the plaint, I find that the plaintiff has claimed a sum of US $ 31693. 44 as due and payable towards the arrears of the bills raised by it. It has further claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the amount due and payable by the defendant no. 1 to it and towards this liability an amount of US $ 19016 has been claimed as interest till the date of filing of the suit. ( 25 ) I find that the admitted position is that the defendant no. 1 was liable to make payment of the full amount of the invoice no. MR 788/97,98 dated 27. 5. 97. 1 to it and towards this liability an amount of US $ 19016 has been claimed as interest till the date of filing of the suit. ( 25 ) I find that the admitted position is that the defendant no. 1 was liable to make payment of the full amount of the invoice no. MR 788/97,98 dated 27. 5. 97. This amount was due and payable within 75 days from 4. 6. 97 and as such became due and payable on 17th August, 1997. Therefore, so far as this bill is concerned an amount of US $ 22591. 06 was payable by the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff with effect from September, 1997. Out of the amount of US $ 22591. 06 the defendant no. 1 made part payment of US $ 13000 leaving the balance of US $ 9591. 06 as due and payable. ( 26 ) THE transaction in question relates to the year 1997. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 4th December, 1999. The exchange rate has varied over the period of time and certainly the exchange rate which was prevalent in over 1997-1999 is not the rate at which this currency would be available today. ( 27 ) IN AIR 1984sc 241 Forasol v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, the Apex court has held that if the plaintiff has already made a choice at the time of filing of the suit and claimed a decree in Indian currency, it cannot be permitted to change the same to the disadvantage of the defendant. This court in the judgment reported at 83 (2000) DLT 277 Mrs. Janet Anne Woolgar James and ors. v. Jaypee Hotel Limited also relied on the principles laid down by the Apex court. Thus, the law is well settled. So far as a claim is in respect of a sum of money expressed in foreign currency, the plaintiff is required to make a choice at the time of filing of the suit. He can either claim the amount due to him in Indian currency or in foreign currency in which it is payable. Thus, the law is well settled. So far as a claim is in respect of a sum of money expressed in foreign currency, the plaintiff is required to make a choice at the time of filing of the suit. He can either claim the amount due to him in Indian currency or in foreign currency in which it is payable. In case the plaintiff opts for a decree in foreign exchange for the claim of the amount due to him, in such case he must make a prayer in the plaint for the decree in such foreign currency, subject to the permission being granted by the concerned authorities. He is further required to give an undertaking in the plaint that he would make good the deficiency in the court fee, if any, on the date of the judgment at the then prevailing exchange rate. ( 28 ) I have found in the instant case the plaintiff has made a claim for the sum of Rs. 21,52,618/- against the defendants. He is bound to stand by such election. ( 29 ) THE plaintiff has stated that as per the prevalent exchange rate, one us dollar was equivalent to Rs. 42. 45. There is no challenge to this statement. It has been held that the defendant no. 1 was owing a sum of Rs. 9591. 06 towards invoice dated 27th May, 1997. As such an amount of Rs. 4,07,140. 50 was payable by the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff being the equivalent of the dollar dues of us $ 9591. 06 in Indian currency at such rate. ( 30 ) SIMILARLY towards the invoice no. 791/97-98, the defendant no. 1 was liable to make payment of US $ 22102. 38 within 75 days from the acceptance of the bill on 27. 9. 97. This amount therefore became due and payable to the plaintiff with effect from 11th December, 1997. Thus calculated on the same rate,t he defendant no. 1 was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 9,38,246/- to the plaintiff. ( 31 ) I find that the plaintiff had claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum on this amount without disclosing the date from which the claim and calculation has been effected in the plaint. Thus calculated on the same rate,t he defendant no. 1 was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 9,38,246/- to the plaintiff. ( 31 ) I find that the plaintiff had claimed interest at the rate of 24% per annum on this amount without disclosing the date from which the claim and calculation has been effected in the plaint. ( 32 ) SO far as the rate of interest to which in my view the defendant is entitled I hold that the defendant has wrongfully withheld the amounts from the plaintiff and the transaction between the parties was a commercial transaction and as such the defendant no. 1 is liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 18% on these amounts from the date they fell due and payable till the date of decree. I therefore hold that the plaintiff would be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 17th August, 1997 on the amount of Rs. 4,07,140. 50 the equivalent of US $ 9591. 06. I also hold that the plaintiff is entitled to simple interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of rs. 9,38,246/-, the equivalent of US $ 22591. 06 with effect from 11th December, 1997. I also hold that the plaintiff is entitled to interest at the rate of 12% from the date of decree till realisation of the decretal amount. ( 33 ) THE defendant no. 2 has been arrayed as a party for the sole reason that it acted as an agent of the defendant no. 1. It is an admitted case that the only liability of the defendant no. 1 was to inspect the goods which were got ready by the plaintiff and to ensure and certify that the same were as per the purchase order placed by the defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 2 has discharged its responsibility when it inspected the goods and issued the certificates. The plaintiff has not claimed any amount from the defendant no. 2. The suit against the defendant no. 2 is consequently dismissed. ( 34 ) THE plaintiff shall be entitled to costs of the suit from the defendant no. 1 which are quantified at Rs. 50,000/-